Obamacare, are you too stupid to get it?

[Fern]

OECD comparisons of health systems don't focus on life expectancy because it is influenced by lots of factors other than the health care system. That's why they focus on 5 year survival rates for cancers, heart attack survival rates, etc, because people's survival is often highly connected to the system.

In these areas our system continues to cost much, much more than socialized health systems the world over without providing commensurate benefits.

^This is exactly our problem.

The New England Journal of Medicine and the AMA have documented this problem. You can take two identical patients and find hundred's of thousands of $'s difference in their care, and it cannot be explained other than our lack of standards. Patients, or their families, will demand redundant or unnecessary procedures and the physician will provide it. The physician has no reason not to, in fact (s)he has every reason to do it.

The physician groups have suggested that the various medical boards develop standards for their area of practive to eliminate the wide variance in treatment, eliminate the unnecessary and redundant or just plain wasteful treatments that are occuring.

Unless and until we solve the underlying problem of rising medical costs, you can print all the comic books you want, many of us are still going to consider this version of HC reform a failure. And if it's implemented, I fully expect that to born out by facts - HC costs will continue to rise and we will continue to see wasteful and unnecessary treatment. This HC bill does nothing to address the real problem(s).

People can complain about HI companies, heck get rid of them altogther, it won't matter because the real problem is the underlying costs of HC itself. When the costs for something continues to increase, whether it be cars, homes or HC, the insurance costs must also rise. HI is not the real problem, it's HC costs.

If a model of healthcare is clearly superior (as demonstrated as working by other nations), why does it matter if the U.S. Constitution says it's allowed or not? The goal should be to implement the system that works best, not to implement whatever's best that also is allowable by a 200+ year old piece of paper. Update what needs updating and get with the times.

Socialized medicine would, IMO, fix the problem(s) I describe above. I don't see anyway the fed gov would allow such a disparity of treatment. Nor would physicians have any compelling reason to go along with it as they do now. Why refuse excessive treatment when you're making a profit off it? Why refuse when you may find yourself in court defending yourself? Why refuse and make your customers unhappy so they won't refer new customers/patients to you? Screw it, do it and let the insurance company pay for it.

But before anyone runs off recommending a model just because it works in another foreign country you must ask how that model will work here in our system and culture.

Does anybody with any common sense seriously think that our physicians etc would go along with nationalizing our HC system? They are independent small businessmen (or businesswomen). Are they gonna hand over their practices and willfully become fed gov employees? I sure as heck don't think so.

What happens when a gov nationalizes a business? They have to pay for it. You must reimburse the owners. It would be enormously expensive for our gov to nationalize HC. It would have to basically buy every medical practice in the USA.

Likewise for the HI industry. You want the fed gov to just take over HI because it shouldn't be for-profit. It can't just 'confiscate' those HI companies, that's billions in equity for the sharejolders etc. It would also be enormously expensive.

I'm not even going to bother mentioning the constitutional problems with the fed gov confiscating these businesses or competing against them.

IMO, before we even begin to entertain the suggestions by the Left/progessives that gov take over this stuff and re-write the Constitution we should listen to the physicians themselves. That should have been done in this whole HC reform and was not. That's a huge obvious glaring fault IMO.

Fern

 

[bfdd]

btw i take it this comic book is for those in congress and the house right? i mean the bill was obviously to hard for some of them to read or understand since some of them didn't read or understand it.

 

[werepossum]

^This is exactly our problem.

The New England Journal of Medicine and the AMA have documented this problem. You can take two identical patients and find hundred's of thousands of $'s difference in their care, and it cannot be explained other than our lack of standards. patients, or their families, will demand redundant or unnecessary procedures and the physician will provide it. The physician has no reason not to, in fact (s)he has every reason to do it.

The physician groups have suggested that the various medical boards develop standards for their area of practive to eliminate the wide variance in treatment, eliminate the unnecessary and redundant or just plain wasteful treatments that are occuring.

Unless and until we solve the underlying problem of rising medical costs, you can print all the comic books you want, many of us are still going to consider this version oh HC reform a failure. And if it's implemented, I fully expect that to born out by facts - HC costs will continue to rise and we will continue to see wasteful and unnecessary treatment. This HC bill does nothing to address the real problem.

People can complain about HI companies, heck get rid of them altogther, it won't matter because the real problem is the underlying costs of HC itself. When the costs for something continues to increase, whether it be cars, homes or HC, the insurance costs must also rise. Hi is not the problem, it's HC costs.



Socialized medicine would, IMO, fix the problem(s) I describe above. I don't see anyway the fed gov would allow such a disparity of treatment. Nor would physicians have any compelling reason to go along with it as they do now. Why refuse excessive treatment when you're making a profit off it? Why refuse when you may find yourself in court defending yourself if refused something you believed unnecessary and wasteful? Screw it, do it and let insurasnce company pay for it.

But before anyone runs off recommending a model just because it works in another foreign country you must ask how that model will work here in our system and culture.

Does anybody with any common sense seriously think that our physicians etc would go along with nationalizing our HC system? They are independnet small businessmen (or businesswomen). Are they gonna hand over their practices and willfully bewcome fed gov employees? I sure as heck don't think so.

What happens when a gov nationalizes a business? They have to pay for it. You must reimburse the owners. It would be enormously expensive for our gov to nationalize HC. It would have to basically buy every medical practice in the USA.

Likewise for the HI industry. You want the fed gov to just take over HI because it shouldn't be for-profit. It can't just 'confiscate' those HI comapnies, that's billions in equity for the sharejolders etc. It would also be enormously expensive.

I'm not even going to bother mentioning the constitutional problems with the fed gov confiscating these businesses or competing against them.

IMO, before we even begin to entertain the suggestions by the Left/progessives that gov take over this stuff we should listen to the physicians themselves. That should have been done in this whole HC reform and was not. That's a huge obvious glaring fault IMO.

Fern

Good points. Certainly we should be listening to health care providers at every level. The problem is that both sides listen only to those health care providers who bolster their own preconceived preferences. This is the inherent problem with government. Even if we managed to elect only politicians with the good of the country at heart, we have no consensus on what "good" even means in health care. To one group "good" means no one profits from health care (even if health care gets worse). To another group "good" means their own health care is subsidized by others, whether it be the illegal aliens of the elderly or the evil rich. To another group "good" means our existing health care system remains intact.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

If a model of healthcare is clearly superior (as demonstrated as working by other nations), why does it matter if the U.S. Constitution says it's allowed or not?

Normally I agree with you, but you're way, way off base here. If we start saying "To hell with the Constitution, let's implement this 'better' system," guess what eventually happens? Pretty soon, politicians find all sorts of "better" things to implement. Right to bear arms? Pffft, it is "better" not to allow that. Freedom of speech? Who needs that pesky right?

The goal should be to implement the system that works best, not to implement whatever's best that also is allowable by a 200+ year old piece of paper. Update what needs updating and get with the times.

There are proper procedures for updating the Constitution and IMO, a change that big needs to go through that process.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
The problem is that both sides listen only to those health care providers who bolster their own preconceived preferences. This is the inherent problem with government.

I think our big problem (or one of them) is that many of our politicians are lawyers.

You set up nationwide professional standards for treatment as the physicians suggest, you make it far harder to sue physicians. Congress won't pass legislation against the (financial) interest their fellow lawyers, or bite the hand that feeds them (money from trial lawyers).

Take the accounting profession. We have national standards that must be adhered to. You don't see many accountants getting sued, at least not successfully. You follow the standards, you're safe. No one can sue on the grounds that "well you could have done more proceedures". Nope, you must do only those proceedures that are required. In fact, if you do more you can be penalized. Extra proceedures are not allowed. You better believe if that wasn't the case accountants would be doing extra procedures to increase fees and protect themselves from lawsuits. Why not?

You extend national standards to the medical profession you'll get the same result; elimination of redundant and unnecessary proceedures. And trial lawyers will take a big financial hit.

Fern

 

[manimal]

I think our big problem (or one of them) is that many of our politicians are lawyers.

You set up nationwide professional standards for treatment as the physicians suggest, you make it far harder to sue physicians. Congress won't pass legislation against the (financial) interest their fellow lawyers, or bite the hand that feeds them (money from trial lawyers).

Take the accounting profession. We have national standards that must be adhered to. You don't see many accountants getting sued, at least not successfully. You follow the standards, you're safe. No one can sue on the grounds that "well you could have done more proceedures". Nope, you must do only those proceedures that are required. In fact, if you do more you can be penalized. Extra proceedures are not allowed. You better believe if that wasn't the case accountants would be doing extra procedures to increase fees and protect themselves from lawsuits. Why not?

You extend national standards to the medical profession you'll get the same result; elimination of redundant and unnecessary proceedures. And trial lawyers will take a big financial hit.

Fern

Its hard to compare medicine and accounting since the consequence and methodology are quite different. The art of medicine as its refereed to has no equal in a pure numbers world...

Malpractice as it is is quite the boogeyman.....

 

[Rainsford]

I think our big problem (or one of them) is that many of our politicians are lawyers.

You set up nationwide professional standards for treatment as the physicians suggest, you make it far harder to sue physicians. Congress won't pass legislation against the (financial) interest their fellow lawyers, or bite the hand that feeds them (money from trial lawyers).

Take the accounting profession. We have national standards that must be adhered to. You don't see many accountants getting sued, at least not successfully. You follow the standards, you're safe. No one can sue on the grounds that "well you could have done more proceedures". Nope, you must do only those proceedures that are required. In fact, if you do more you can be penalized. Extra proceedures are not allowed. You better believe if that wasn't the case accountants would be doing extra procedures to increase fees and protect themselves from lawsuits. Why not?

You extend national standards to the medical profession you'll get the same result; elimination of redundant and unnecessary proceedures. And trial lawyers will take a big financial hit.

Fern

Except the goal isn't to throw an elbow at the trial lawyers, as much as people in general and conservatives in particular seem to hate them. And while my opinion is that lawyers in general can screw things up, I've seen zero evidence that suggests we can blame them for any significant part of the problem with health care in this country.

 

[werepossum]

I think our big problem (or one of them) is that many of our politicians are lawyers.

You set up nationwide professional standards for treatment as the physicians suggest, you make it far harder to sue physicians. Congress won't pass legislation against the (financial) interest their fellow lawyers, or bite the hand that feeds them (money from trial lawyers).

Take the accounting profession. We have national standards that must be adhered to. You don't see many accountants getting sued, at least not successfully. You follow the standards, you're safe. No one can sue on the grounds that "well you could have done more proceedures". Nope, you must do only those proceedures that are required. In fact, if you do more you can be penalized. Extra proceedures are not allowed. You better believe if that wasn't the case accountants would be doing extra procedures to increase fees and protect themselves from lawsuits. Why not?

You extend national standards to the medical profession you'll get the same result; elimination of redundant and unnecessary proceedures. And trial lawyers will take a big financial hit.

Fern

Exactly right. Oddly, lawyers are the one class of professional not only allowed but encouraged to lie during their practice. Imagine if accountants or engineers were allowed the same. "Why, yes, that building did fall over, but my client didn't want to spend too much on a foundation." (On the other hand, imagine accountants or engineers losing licenses for failing to return phone calls.)

There should be national standards for physicians. Present with these symptoms, perform these tests as a minimum and you are covered legally. It would be difficult, but not impossible to make such standards. Also, malpractice lawsuits should be heard only by judges; juries are too willing to dig into the "deep pockets" out of sympathy even if they find no fault in the physician or facility. And proportionality should be enforced; if liability is adjudged at 10%, not more than 10% of damages should be affixed to that party. And non-disclosure agreements should not be allowed; that shelters the truly bad doctors and nurses. If your doctor thinks, based on your medical history or ethnicity or just a hunch, that extra tests would be of value even though your symptoms don't call for them, he could always prescribe them, he just wouldn't be liable for not prescribing them.

Except the goal isn't to throw an elbow at the trial lawyers, as much as people in general and conservatives in particular seem to hate them. And while my opinion is that lawyers in general can screw things up, I've seen zero evidence that suggests we can blame them for any significant part of the problem with health care in this country.

Spend some time getting to know doctors. You'll find the ones who have been sued for malpractice, even unsuccessfully, are the ones who order all kinds of expensive tests. Sometimes insurance policies and hospitals or physician groups require them. It's called defensive medicine, spending your client's money to avoid spending your own. A doctor may well know that not one of your symptoms indicates pancreatic cancer, but he also knows that if you have pancreatic cancer and he doesn't do a test that could reveal it, then he may well be held liable for "misdiagnosing" your condition - even if you do also have the gallstones he diagnosed.

 

[Fern]

Its hard to compare medicine and accounting since the consequence and methodology are quite different. The art of medicine as its refereed to has no equal in a pure numbers world...

Malpractice as it is is quite the boogeyman.....

The physicians seem to think they can do it (set national standards); it's their idea, not mine.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Except the goal isn't to throw an elbow at the trial lawyers, as much as people in general and conservatives in particular seem to hate them. And while my opinion is that lawyers in general can screw things up, I've seen zero evidence that suggests we can blame them for any significant part of the problem with health care in this country.

Either you misunderstand me, or I'm misunderstanding you.

No, the goal is not attack to trial lawyers, not mine anyway. (I do think it is in many current proposals.) Trial lawyers are ancilliory, but I'm suggesting because of the effect national standards may have on them the physicians' idea isn't getting any traction in Congress.

The point of national standards is halting the well documented reality of wildly different treatments for identical patients. To be clear I'm specifically speaking to the chronic diaseases (sp?) that account for the great bulk of our HC costs. According to the NEJM and the AMA there's no good/explainable reason for $100,000's difference in treatments for identical patients.

Whether it's due to fear of lawsuit, profit motive, sympathy or just incompetence doesn't really matter. The national standards proposed by physicians takes care of all these.

Ferm

 

[Rainsford]

Either you misunderstand me, or I'm misunderstanding you.

No, the goal is not attack to trial lawyers, not mine anyway. (I do think it is in many current proposals.) Trial lawyers are ancilliory, but I'm suggesting because of the effect national standards may have on them the physicians' idea isn't getting any traction in Congress.

The point of national standards is halting the well documented reality of wildly different treatments for identical patients. To be clear I'm specifically speaking to the chronic diaseases (sp?) that account for the great bulk of our HC costs. According to the NEJM and the AMA there's no good/explainable reason for $100,000's difference in treatments for identical patients.

Whether it's due to fear of lawsuit, profit motive, sympathy or just incompetence doesn't really matter. The national standards proposed by physicians takes care of all these.

Ferm

I wasn't talking about you so much as about the proposals in general, which do seem to be geared towards attacking trial lawyers.

It does seem like the wildly differing standards of treatment could be a big driver of the extremely high cost of medicine in this country. But I also wonder about the overhead of the tests and drugs, and the fact that medicine is an enormously profitable business for a lot of people besides those directly involved with treatment.

Honestly I think a multi-pronged approach is necessary...there is no simple answer. You're probably at least partially right, and so am I, and so are a lot of other people. It's not a left or a right issue. But since NOTHING is not a left vs right issue, I wonder if the biggest obstacle to true improvement in health care is that those with the ability to effect change are most interested in using it a club to beat the "other side".

 

[Rainsford]

...
Spend some time getting to know doctors. You'll find the ones who have been sued for malpractice, even unsuccessfully, are the ones who order all kinds of expensive tests. Sometimes insurance policies and hospitals or physician groups require them. It's called defensive medicine, spending your client's money to avoid spending your own. A doctor may well know that not one of your symptoms indicates pancreatic cancer, but he also knows that if you have pancreatic cancer and he doesn't do a test that could reveal it, then he may well be held liable for "misdiagnosing" your condition - even if you do also have the gallstones he diagnosed.

I didn't say malpractice suits can't or don't cause problems for even good doctors. But there is an important difference between saying an overly litigious environment is a problem and declaring it a primary or significant factor in the health care issues in this country. Or for that matter, that the problems it causes are worse than the problems it prevents.

 

[Carmen813]

I think our big problem (or one of them) is that many of our politicians are lawyers.

You set up nationwide professional standards for treatment as the physicians suggest, you make it far harder to sue physicians. Congress won't pass legislation against the (financial) interest their fellow lawyers, or bite the hand that feeds them (money from trial lawyers).

Take the accounting profession. We have national standards that must be adhered to. You don't see many accountants getting sued, at least not successfully. You follow the standards, you're safe. No one can sue on the grounds that "well you could have done more proceedures". Nope, you must do only those proceedures that are required. In fact, if you do more you can be penalized. Extra proceedures are not allowed. You better believe if that wasn't the case accountants would be doing extra procedures to increase fees and protect themselves from lawsuits. Why not?

You extend national standards to the medical profession you'll get the same result; elimination of redundant and unnecessary proceedures. And trial lawyers will take a big financial hit.

Fern

This would work well with most physical illnesses, as they are by and large not impacted by external factors such as race/ethnicity (though there are some exceptions). However, for mental health it is best left completely in the providers hands. The one size fits all approach results in incredibly shitty care. I'm for sensible tort reform.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

National standards for treatments? Isn't that exactly the kind of thing the "government takeover" crowd has been whining the loudest about? How in the world is anything like that supposed to fly now?

People love to harp about government, lawyers, doctors, and insurance companies, but the ultimate root of the healthcare problem in this country is the mass of damn morons that don't take one iota of responsibility for their own health, expect to go to a doctor for every sniffle and sneeze, expect a pill to trump whatever bad habit they insist upon, and bitch and moan about a reform bill that, before anything else, had to be primarily written to indulge their very own stupidity.

 

[Carmen813]

National standards for treatments? Isn't that exactly the kind of thing the "government takeover" crowd has been whining the loudest about? How in the world is anything like that supposed to fly now?

People love to harp about government, lawyers, doctors, and insurance companies, but the ultimate root of the healthcare problem in this country is the mass of damn morons that don't take one iota of responsibility for their own health, expect to go to a doctor for every sniffle and sneeze, expect a pill to trump whatever bad habit they insist upon, and bitch and moan about a reform bill that, before anything else, had to be primarily written to indulge their very own stupidity.

And on the outside, any time a government program suggesting education about healthier living is proposed, it's decried as an assault on personal freedom.

 

[piasabird]

No such thing as free health care??? It comes from taxes. Higher taxes and Higher taxes and higher taxes and higher taxes and higher taxes . . .

ad nosium.

 

[hal2kilo]

And on the outside, any time a government program suggesting education about healthier living is proposed, it's decried as an assault on personal freedom.

Exactly.

 

[werepossum]

This would work well with most physical illnesses, as they are by and large not impacted by external factors such as race/ethnicity (though there are some exceptions). However, for mental health it is best left completely in the providers hands. The one size fits all approach results in incredibly shitty care. I'm for sensible tort reform.

Yet you are a proponent for government-run single payer health care. That's the ultimate in one size fits all.

Not to especially disagree with you, but I should point out too that race and ethnicity do complicate and significantly impact many physical illnesses. In illnesses where proper diagnostics include changes in coloration or streaks of red or white, dark-skinned people need additional testing. Many blacks have lost limbs due to doctors' reliance on physical symptoms that are difficult if not impossible to detect in blacks. Standardized testing needs to include those symptoms where certain races or ethnicities need additional testing because additional symptoms that might be diagnostic may be undetectable due to skin coloration, or because certain races or ethnicities have higher rates of diseases (such as sickle cell anemia or diabetes.) Otherwise the desire to keep costs down (whether for profit or to maximize services) may actually force doctors to perform fewer tests than they otherwise would perform.

National standards for treatments? Isn't that exactly the kind of thing the "government takeover" crowd has been whining the loudest about? How in the world is anything like that supposed to fly now?

People love to harp about government, lawyers, doctors, and insurance companies, but the ultimate root of the healthcare problem in this country is the mass of damn morons that don't take one iota of responsibility for their own health, expect to go to a doctor for every sniffle and sneeze, expect a pill to trump whatever bad habit they insist upon, and bitch and moan about a reform bill that, before anything else, had to be primarily written to indulge their very own stupidity.

You think national standards for diagnostics/treatments won't fly but nationalized health care will?

Drugs are bad, m'kay?

 

[hal2kilo]

Yet you are a proponent for government-run single payer health care. That's the ultimate in one size fits all.

Not to especially disagree with you, but I should point out too that race and ethnicity do complicate and significantly impact many physical illnesses. In illnesses where proper diagnostics include changes in coloration or streaks of red or white, dark-skinned people need additional testing. Many blacks have lost limbs due to doctors' reliance on physical symptoms that are difficult if not impossible to detect in blacks. Standardized testing needs to include those symptoms where certain races or ethnicities need additional testing because additional symptoms that might be diagnostic may be undetectable due to skin coloration, or because certain races or ethnicities have higher rates of diseases (such as sickle cell anemia or diabetes.) Otherwise the desire to keep costs down (whether for profit or to maximize services) may actually force doctors to perform fewer tests than they otherwise would perform.


You think national standards for diagnostics/treatments won't fly but nationalized health care will?

Drugs are bad, m'kay?

Standardized testing = one size fits all not found. Way to simplify what standardization means.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

^

Socialized medicine would, IMO, fix the problem(s) I describe above. I don't see anyway the fed gov would allow such a disparity of treatment. Nor would physicians have any compelling reason to go along with it as they do now. Why refuse excessive treatment when you're making a profit off it? Why refuse when you may find yourself in court defending yourself? Why refuse and make your customers unhappy so they won't refer new customers/patients to you? Screw it, do it and let the insurance company pay for it.

But before anyone runs off recommending a model just because it works in another foreign country you must ask how that model will work here in our system and culture.

Does anybody with any common sense seriously think that our physicians etc would go along with nationalizing our HC system? They are independent small businessmen (or businesswomen). Are they gonna hand over their practices and willfully become fed gov employees? I sure as heck don't think so.

What happens when a gov nationalizes a business? They have to pay for it. You must reimburse the owners. It would be enormously expensive for our gov to nationalize HC. It would have to basically buy every medical practice in the USA.

Likewise for the HI industry. You want the fed gov to just take over HI because it shouldn't be for-profit. It can't just 'confiscate' those HI companies, that's billions in equity for the sharejolders etc. It would also be enormously expensive.

I'm not even going to bother mentioning the constitutional problems with the fed gov confiscating these businesses or competing against them.

IMO, before we even begin to entertain the suggestions by the Left/progessives that gov take over this stuff and re-write the Constitution we should listen to the physicians themselves. That should have been done in this whole HC reform and was not. That's a huge obvious glaring fault IMO.

Fern

Another way to discourage the overuse of health care is to encourage high deductible plans. If everyone had a $2000 deductible they might think twice about getting extra tests and MRIs. Of course this wouldn't help eliminate the $100,000 we spend to keep grandma alive for another 6 months but it would still help.

If we went to single payer we are relying on government regulations to keep costs down. If we can get people to directly pay for a larger portion of their healthcare then market forces should bring costs down in an arguably more efficient way.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

You think national standards for diagnostics/treatments won't fly but nationalized health care will?

Drugs are bad, m'kay?

My whole point is that most positive steps government could take with our healthcare system won't fly because yes, people are too stupid to get it. Hell, the the average person in this country is too stupid to even keep from eating themselves to a sickened and early death. There are clear and proven strategies for improvement and examples of other countries using cheaper and more effective systems but the average tard here just looks at them and screams "OMG Teh Socializm!!1!" And that contributes more to the mangled, flawed, and compromised half-answers we get from legislation on the matter far more than any of the usual fallguys. Stay sick and stupid America, and enjoy another McRib.

 

[werepossum]

Another way to discourage the overuse of health care is to encourage high deductible plans. If everyone had a $2000 deductible they might think twice about getting extra tests and MRIs. Of course this wouldn't help eliminate the $100,000 we spend to keep grandma alive for another 6 months but it would still help.

If we went to single payer we are relying on government regulations to keep costs down. If we can get people to directly pay for a larger portion of their healthcare then market forces should bring costs down in an arguably more efficient way.

I totally agree. Unfortunately in our entitlement mentality society, our health care is increasingly something people think "someone else" should fund. Personally we have health savings accounts, basically my own money tax free coupled with a high deductible health insurance program, and we love it. However health care and government regulation are moving in the other direction. Already BCBS is not sure if our policy can be continued under Obamacare.

My whole point is that most positive steps government could take with our healthcare system won't fly because yes, people are too stupid to get it. Hell, the the average person in this country is too stupid to even keep from eating themselves to a sickened and early death. There are clear and proven strategies for improvement and examples of other countries using cheaper and more effective systems but the average tard here just looks at them and screams "OMG Teh Socializm!!1!" And that contributes more to the mangled, flawed, and compromised half-answers we get from legislation on the matter far more than any of the usual fallguys. Stay sick and stupid America, and enjoy another McRib.

I'm sure there's more to your world view than "people who disagree with me are too stupid to see my brilliance", but for the life of me I'm missing it. No doubt a limitation of my intelligence. LOL

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

I'm sure there's more to your world view than "people who disagree with me are too stupid to see my brilliance", but for the life of me I'm missing it. No doubt a limitation of my intelligence. LOL

Yeah, being brilliant is a pretty big burden. Be thankful you're free of it.

 

[trenchfoot]

It seems to me the goal of the repubs was to kill the plan any way they could, with the ultimate as-stated goal of making sure Obama was a one-term preident.

They weren't there to figure out what was best for all of America healthcare-wise. They certainly weren't bi-partisan in any way shape or form. With that in mind, I'd take it that anything they wanted included in the package was put in with that goal in mind. Anything else they had written in at the last moment was whatever they could get for the "for-profits" once they knew they couldn't stop it from passing into law.

There is absolutely no way a successful health care program can come out of Congress with that kind of "legislating" going on.

 

[werepossum]

Yeah, being brilliant is a pretty big burden. Be thankful you're free of it.